Chapter 4 — Why the royal dignity is rendered hateful to the subjects

Because both the best and the worst government are latent in monarchy (that is, in the rule of one man), the royal dignity is rendered hateful to many people on account of the wickedness of tyrants. Some men, indeed, while they desire to be ruled by a king, fall under the cruelty of tyrants, and not a few rulers exercise tyranny under the cloak of royal dignity.

A clear example of this is found in the Roman Republic. When the kings had been driven out by the Roman people, because they could not bear the royal, or rather tyrannical, arrogance, they instituted consuls and other magistrates by whom they began to be ruled and guided. They changed the kingdom into an aristocracy, and, as Sallust relates: The Roman city, once liberty was won, waxed incredibly strong and great in a remarkably short time. (Bellum Catilinae VI, 7.) For it frequently happens that men living under a king strive more sluggishly for the common good, since they consider that what they devote to the common good they do not confer upon themselves, but upon another, under whose power they see the common goods to be. But when they see that the common good is not under the power of one man, they do not attend to it as if it belonged to another, but each one attends to it as if it were his own. Experience thus teaches that one city administered by rulers, changing annually, is sometimes able to do more than some kings having three or four such cities; and small taxes exacted by kings weigh more heavily than great burdens imposed by the community of citizens. This held good in the history of the Roman Republic. The plebs were enrolled in the army and were paid wages for military service; and when the common treasury was failing, private riches came forth for public uses, to such an extent that not even the senators retained any gold for themselves save one ring and the one bulla, which were the insignia of their dignity.

On the other hand, when the Romans were worn out by continual dissensions taking on the proportion of civil wars, and when by these wars the freedom for which they had greatly striven was snatched from their hands, they began to find themselves under the power of emperors who, from the beginning, were unwilling to be called kings, for the royal name was hateful to the Romans. Some emperors, it is true, faithfully cared for the common good in a kingly manner, and by their zeal the commonwealth was increased and preserved. But most of them became tyrants towards their subjects while indolent and vacillating before their enemies, and brought the Roman Republic to nothing.

A similar process also took place among the Hebrew people. At first, while they were ruled by judges, they were ravished by their enemies on every hand, for each one did what was good in his sight (1 Sam 3:18). Yet when God gave them kings at their insistance, they departed from the worship of the one God and were finally led into bondage on account of the wickedness of their kings.

Danger thus lurks on either side. Either men are held by the fear of a tyrant and they miss the opportunity of having kingship, the best government, or they want a king, and the kingly power turns into tyrannical wickedness.